Sound familiar? Let’s face it–some days you just need to disengage. The problem is, disengaging can quickly become the easy way out as you fall into the humdrum of everyday life and you wake up one morning forgetting who the person is lying next to you. My wife Melissa and I have been married four years now, and there are still days where we look at each other and say, “I feel like I haven’t seen you in weeks.” It happens to the best of us, especially as work and friends and activities take over, and we get stuck in the tedious rhythms of life. Sleep. Eat. Work. Sleep. Eat. Work.

Fight the desire to veg and let’s bring back that spark! That connection you once had with your loved one as you talked until 3 in the morning about Star Wars and jelly bean flavors.

Here are the rules of the game. Make it intentional: Set aside a purposeful time with your husband or wife, be it a weekly date night or any dedicated time to focus on each other and not talk about work. And number two: Ditch the tech. No phones, no social media, no TV. I know it’s hard, but the result is worth it.

Now try these ten tricks to trigger communication with your spouse that have worked wonders for my wife and I.

01. Draw Each Other.

Wait, what? OK, you don’t have to specifically draw each other, per se, but try letting your artistic juices flow. I remember when Melissa and I went to a “wine and painting” class. We drank a bottle and left with two Picasso masterpieces that somehow looked like a guy with a ponytail and a toucan. It doesn’t matter what you draw or paint or how good you are, just get creative together and let the laughter ensue.

02. Reminisce.

Childhood is a bottomless trove of fascinating stories and insights about the one you love. I’ll never forget visiting my grandparents who have been married for more than fifty years. My grandma told us a story about a play she wrote in grammar school (I think it was about a potato) that left us all rolling, and afterward my grandpa said, “I never knew that about you.” It was amazing. So dive into those awkward childhood photos. Ask about third grade. See what comes up. Everybody loves stories.

03. Cook Something Exotic.

Ever made chicken tikka masala or Vietnamese pho? Me neither. But you could! Research it, find the ingredients, and enjoy whatever concoction you make together. Some of the most memorable conversations I’ve had with Melissa have been in the kitchen.

04. Dream.

I love to dream. Where do you want to be five years from now? Ten years? If you had to move to a new city right now, where would you go? What would you do? You may learn new things and all you have to do is ask.

05. Experience Art.

I’m not talking about a movie, but art at the theater or a museum. Find out what inspires the two of you. What do you like or not like? Why?

06. Read Spanish Poetry.

I recommend Pablo Neruda. “Te amo como se aman ciertas cosas oscuras, secretamente, entre la sombra y el alma.” Translation: “I love you the way certain dark things are loved, secretly, between the shadow and the soul.” Talk about love! A common question my wife and I ask each other is this, “How can I love you better?” Sounds trite, but it’s often revealing and helpful.

07. Play a Game.

Monopoly, chess, checkers, Scrabble, you name it. Find your inner child. It’s all about having fun together and enjoying one another’s company. (And winning. It’s also about winning.)

08. Have a Dance Party.

That’s right: Sometimes you just have to take off your shoes and dance. Even if it’s playing the song from your first dance at your wedding or singing karaoke to your favorite 1990s rock ballad (“Wonderwall” by Oasis, anyone?), don’t be afraid to be goofy and bust a move.

09. Get Physical.

Not that kind of physical—at least, not yet. Get outside. Go for a run. Take a Zumba or body pump or trapeze class. Sometimes you just need to get the blood flowing before the conversation does.

10) Serve.

It probably does seem unusual, but volunteering in our city has brought my wife and I together in a special way. It’s the type of bond only forged with those who are willing to get in the mud with you for the sake of something greater. How can you make a difference together?

Not every tip will work for every couple, but these are ten simple suggestions to get you started. The idea is to look for something to break the monotony, spark conversation, and develop those shared experiences that truly knit us together.

If there’s one theological commitment that unites both sides of the same-sex marriage debate, it’s semi-Pelagianism. Taking its name from the fourth-century monk Pelagius, semi-Pelagianism may be thought of as a theological mood or a set of impulses that’s opposed to a strong doctrine of original sin. Fearing that talk of our broken wills may hamper moral striving, the semi-Pelagian stresses perfectibility as a motive for action.

It’s easy, I fear, to encounter a watered-down version of this sentiment when you listen to the volleys fired from the left and the right in the same-sex marriage debates in Christian circles today. In a 2010 report commissioned by and for the Episcopal Church, the self-identified “liberal” camp described their theology of same-sex marriage like this: “Marriage is a signal means of taking part in the atonement through our very bodies. . . . [A] body’s true expression and fulfillment comes only in gift, and refusal of this gift risks the refusal of the Spirit.” Same-sex marriage, on this view, is utterly necessary for churches to affirm because it is a means for gay Christians to participate in Christ’s atoning self-gift. Or, as Eugene Rogers has put it, gay Christians’ renunciation (rather than consecration) of their desires “gives God nothing by which to redeem them, no hook in the flesh by which to capture them and pull them up.” What this means, as Douglas Farrow has pointed out, is that “Eros”—or the human pursuit and cultivation of it—“is the real mediator here, not Jesus Christ.”

But things aren’t always better in the traditionalist camp. Mirroring the rhetoric of some of their ideological opponents, conservatives, too, can fall into the moralizing, semi-Pelagian trap. We—I count myself among them—can speak of celibacy as a faithful path for gay Christians in such sunny, sanguine terms that one might think salvation comes by saying no to gay sex rather than by the mediation of Christ. Consider, for instance, how a case for the traditional Christian teaching on marriage and celibacy sounded to one young gay man: “[I was led to believe that] joy within celibacy is sustainable, maintainable, and achievable for anyone who reaches for it. . . . [I]f someone is faithful, tries hard enough, and does the right things, a life of sustainable celibacy will be theirs.” Like the negative image of a developing photograph, Pollyanna-ish optimism about the vocation of celibacy is simply the inverse of a theology that locates salvation for gay people in marriage. Arguably, both sides have failed to take seriously enough the depth of our collective human fall into sin.

I’ve been thinking about all this again recently because I’ve been reading a small book called What I Believe by the celebrated French Catholic novelist from the last century, François Mauriac. Written toward the end of his life, Mauriac’s book is a final testament of sorts, articulating in simple, straightforward affirmations of faith what he had earlier enfolded more obliquely into his fiction. In one of the book’s chapters, Mauriac treats the subject of sexual purity, and what he says is anything but what today’s cultured despisers of traditional Christian morality might expect.

In the first place, Mauriac is unblushingly honest about the inability of a lifetime of moral effort to guarantee one’s purity in old age. One might hope that sexual discipline is a cumulative thing, making chastity easier with time. On the contrary, Mauriac says, the latter years of a man’s life can be “a period of redoubled testing because the imagination in an old man is substituted in a horrible way for what nature refuses him.” No imagery here of wizened sainthood: Mauriac is forthright about how, the longer one lives, the more intense the struggles of the moral life can become.

Furthermore, Mauriac doesn’t see marriage as remedy for these lusts. Granted, Christians since the time of the New Testament have usually spoken of marriage as a way of banking desire’s embers. “It is better to marry than to burn,” wrote St. Paul to the Corinthians. But Mauriac notes that even after marrying, a person is likely to harbor obsessions that cannot be lawfully slaked within the marriage. Our fallen sexual desire, most likely, “goes far beyond the sexual act and cannot be appeased in marital life, because it involves the attraction of unknown creatures and the taste for adventure and chance meetings.” Which means that “a Christian marriage simplifies nothing in the problem of purity, and that within that problem it creates a world of difficulties which concern it alone.” So much for any naïve view of marriage as the answer to frustrated desire.

Ultimately, though, I think Mauriac’s sharpest challenge is aimed at those of us who affirm the traditional Christian view of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and who, consequently, urge Christians to abstain from gay sex. On the one hand, Mauriac wants to disabuse us of any notion that sexual purity might be easy to attain. There is “wretchedness” in us, he says—sounding the Augustinian note—and even for the strongest of us, there are “failures which are repeated throughout our poor lives.” But Mauriac also wants to recalibrate our reason for pursuing sexual purity and offer us a better means of pursuing it.

Sexual abstinence is not an end in itself, he says, undertaken to demonstrate one’s own moral heroism. Our purity of mind and body is rather, firstly, for the sake of love for Christ—“His love does not allow any sharing”—and, secondly, for the sake of those whom Christ loves, for the sake of honoring the sanctity of the bodies and souls to whom we are attracted. “We have to be pure,” Mauriac writes, “in order to give ourselves to others, for Christ’s love is love for others.”

And the only way such purity is achievable in Christian lives is not by white-knuckled effort but by receiving a love whose sweetness somehow exceeds what we naturally think we want. “Christ,” Mauriac concludes, “is ready to substitute Himself in a sovereign and absolute way for that hunger and thirst, to substitute another thirst and another hunger.” The Sermon on the Mount is more carrot than pitchfork: “Blessed are the pure in heart.” The allure of the beatific vision, not the threat of punishment, is what Jesus uses to motivate the ascetic regime.

I was with a saintly older Christian recently who, Mauriac-like, gently chastised me for speaking of sexual discipline in the imperative mood. “It’s not that we should or must be sexually pure,” he said. “It’s that we taste the goodness of Christ in the Eucharist, and we’re enticed into purity.” How different my articulations of traditional Christian teaching about marriage and chastity might sound if I were to follow his, and Mauriac’s, lead. There is a better way forward in the same-sex marriage debates than a reinforced moralism, and it has to do with a deepening knowledge of the love which is the Christian’s main theme.

Wesley Hill is assistant professor of biblical studies at Trinity School for Ministry.

I like natural lifestyle choices. Unprocessed food keeps the flora and nutrients balanced in your body, natural deodorant steers clear of aluminum toxicity. Glass instead of plastic, essential oils instead of medicine, and grass-fed beef instead of cows that have been pumped with synthetic hormones. The additives that go into processed foods and mainstream brand toiletries can include carcinogens and other toxins that lead to weight gain, high blood pressure, and cancer.

The trade-off is … well, inconvenience and cost. I pay more for hormone-free meat, as well as other organic products. I have damp underarms because, well, there is no such thing as “natural” anti-perspirant. The best we can hope for is no funk.

And every morning, I take my daily dose of synthetic ethinyl estradiol, also known as the birth control pill, a class one carcinogen.

Wait. What?

This sounds absurd. Yet, it is possibly the most common paradox I have seen. Eat the meat of a cow that has consumed synthetic hormones? No! Take them yourself via a highly concentrated white pill? Yes, please, but I can only wash them down with organic juice. Chemical free.

The recent storm against GMOs are enough to make me think that if birth control didn’t fall within the boundaries of “women’s reproductive rights,” it would have gotten banned long ago. Women would write letters until “Pharma” (birth control makes up 2.8 billion dollar slice of the pharmaceutical pie) stopped making poison meant to be consumed by unsuspecting women. There is in fact a big label on any birth control, stating its synthetic nature and chemical name, along with its laundry list of side effects: weight gain, breast cancer, depression, blood clots, heart attacks, strokes … oh, and possible death. In fact, as I write this, there are several class action law suits against brands of birth control that have been out for years and have been consumed by millions of women. Yazmin and Nuva Ring are great examples of this.

I can now only conclude that natural-minded women taking the birth control pill have weighed the pros and cons carefully and decided that the pros outweigh the cons. For example, some pros: attracting and keeping a boyfriend/husband with the allure of sexual activity, free of the natural consequence of sex, a baby. One can therefore have all the sex she wants, and feed and nurture relationships, without worrying about conceiving. (It is important to note here that there are isolated and fairly rare cases where the birth control pill is used to treat an illness, although this is not the common use to which I am referring.)

So, in that case, does it stand to reason that birth control is truly good for relationships?

Philadelphia’s NBC 10 once dubbed the birth control pill “the divorce pill” because of its dual effect. The first effect is that chemical birth control seems to make women less capable of choosing a compatible mate. Dr. Janet Smith explains the foundation of this claim by citing the “T-Shirt test.” The t-shirt test began by rating men according to their evolutionary desirability (physical attractiveness, diligence, intelligence, high-level job status, financial independence, vs. lower evolutionary desirability, which included tendencies of mental illness, homelessness, lack of motivation, etc.); these men were then given t-shirts to sweat into. Women, without seeing the men who used the t-shirts, were asked to smell the shirts and rate the men. Women who were using chemical contraceptives rated the less desirable men as being more desirable, while the women who were not using chemical contraceptives rated the “good” guys as being most desirable.

This suggests that many women, who take chemical contraceptives during their dating years, end up choosing an unsuitable spouse for marriage. Several years into the marriage, when the couple decides to have children, the woman stops taking the chemical birth control. She looks at her husband with fresh eyes and wonders what she saw in him while they were dating. This situation could end in divorce, or make a divorce more likely.

The second reason for “the divorce pill” claim is that chemical contraception makes women less attractive to men. Lionel Tiger (yes, that’s his real name) conducted a study on an island inhabited by a tribe of monkeys. He watched the alpha male monkey, whom he referred to as “Austin,” taking note of his sexual choices. Austin chose to mate with three female monkeys exclusively. Tiger injected those three female monkeys with Depro-Provera shot (sound familiar? This is a common birth control shot for women) and watched their further interaction. Austin was no longer interested, ignored his original mates, and mated with the other female monkeys on the island. Tiger then injected all the female monkeys with Depro-Provera and Austin acted in a “confused and turbulent” manner. When the birth control shot wore off, Austin placidly went back to his original three mates.

The two effects work together to create chaos: Women are chasing the wrong men, while the right men are not attracted to them.

As this question rattled in my mind—why do natural-minded women use chemical birth control?—I started researching. Surely someone had written about it. One blogger at treehugger.com wrote that, while she had reduced her exposure to harmful chemicals in other parts of her life, her birth control just wasn’t something she was willing to give up. The substance of her argument included: Once burned, twice shy … had a kid at 22 and don’t want that particular consequence to happen again … Maybe it’s fine for a woman who is married, or in a stable relationship … birth control was really the best choice for a lot of women.

I question her argument, based on the above scientific/cultural research and other studies evincing similarly concerning facts. If taking chemical birth control actually prevents you from selecting good relationships, why take it? Why cloud your own judgment while simultaneously putting your health in jeopardy? Accepting that kind of health burden is just another form of female enslavement, not a “freeing” of one’s body. Women have been duped into giving men sex without commitment, labeling this decision “reproductive rights.”

If you are already married, especially, why not go a natural route? We already know that chemical birth control lowers a woman’s libido, and lowers her husband’s desire as well. Natural family planning (not the rhythm method, okay, people?) has been shown to be every bit as effective as birth control. In some areas of India the birth rate actually approaches zero because of it. It’s cheap to use, requires only knowledge, and can empower women of all socio-economic statuses to take control of their reproduction, not just an unnecessary health risk.

I hope women (who carefully weigh the pros and cons of every other health decision in their lives) will examine the social and individual health threats that hide behind the convenience of chemical birth control. A 2.8 billion dollar industry has worked hard to make the pill to seem the simple answer to our problems. As we know from other areas of life, simple conveniences are often the most toxic and destructive: hormone-driven mass produced meat, instant Ramen noodles; and birth control is no exception

By Kerri LenartowickVatican City, May 9, 2014 / 05:04 am (CNA).- In his homily on Friday morning, Pope Francis reminded the congregation of the holiness of the Church that at the same time contains sinful members.

“We are sinners, everyone, here. And the Church is holy! We are sinners, but she is holy,” he emphasized to the congregation at the daily Mass on May 9 in the Santa Marta guesthouse chapel.

The Pope stressed the living reality of the Church that is both heavenly but also present on earth, saying the Church “is the spouse of Jesus Christ and he loves her, he sanctifies her, he sanctifies her every day with his Eucharistic sacrifice, because he loves her so much.”

He went on to acknowledge that it can be difficult to understand the nature of the Church’s holiness: “But how can it be holy if all of us are in it?”

“We are sinners, but in a holy Church,” he explained, noting that because Christ makes the Church holy, all members of the Church are called to participate in the process of being made holy.

“And even we are sanctified with this membership in the Church: we are sons of the Church and mother Church sanctifies us, with her love, with the sacraments of her spouse.”

Moreover, he noted, “holiness is a gift from Jesus to his Church.” Christians can actively accept this gift, but “no one sanctifies himself.”

Rather, Christ “chooses persons in which one sees clearly his work of sanctification.”

Pope Francis noted that there are many persons in scripture who display sanctity, showing that “there is not one path for becoming holy.”

Many of the people Jesus calls to follow him, like Matthew and Zacchaeus who were tax collectors, display “the first rule of sanctity: it is necessary that Christ grows and we become less.” Humility is the “rule of sanctity,” he stressed.

In Friday’s scripture reading, the story of St. Paul shows this kind of process of sanctification through humility.

St. Paul, known first as Saul, persecuted the first Christians, “but the Lord awaits him. He waits for him and makes known (to him) his power. (Saul) becomes blind and obedient,” recounted Pope Francis.
After his conversion, Paul becomes a great preacher of the Christian faith, traveling throughout the nations to proclaim the gospel of Christ. Yet he ends “his life with a small group of friends, here in Rome.”

“They carry him away…cut off his head. Simply. The great man, that one who went out into the world, ends (life) like this,” reflected the pontiff.

“The difference between heroes and saints is witness, the imitation of Jesus Christ,” he explained. Saints embrace the way of the cross: many “finish so humbly.”

“I think of the last days of St. John Paul II – everyone saw it,” remarked the Pope, recalling how frail his deceased predecessor was. The recently canonized late pontiff was unable to walk or speak in the days preceding his death.

A woman’s fertility is a sacred thing- something about the ability to create and grow another human being makes us feel empowered, and is often viewed as the height of femininity. But many women often end up facing struggles with their own fertility, making them feel like less of a woman, though in actuality it does not mean any such thing. It can be devastating, regardless. There are many reasons why a woman might not be able to conceive. Sometimes it is the husband, but often it is an underlying health problem within the woman’s own body.

In 1978, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) was introduced in Europe as the newest way of achieving pregnancy, reaching the US by 1981, and since then has grown to be a popular form of achieving pregnancy for infertile couples. The problem with IVF is that it bypasses any searching out of underlying causes. Up until 1978, much of the science related to fertility care was directed at researching and addressing underlying causes that correlated to infertility. But IVF created a shift in the focus of infertility and the approach that was once based on diagnosis and treatment became one based on the quickest possible fix.

Because IVF is such a popular choice in the world of infertility, it can be a daunting experience when a woman finds herself desiring a different route. My sister, Kate, is one such person. With the loss of one baby and one ovary, and with one successful natural pregnancy, problems with endometriosis and several surgeries under her belt, she faced a long six years of infertility after her son was born. Faced with the disappointment month after month, year after year of not becoming pregnant as she desperately wanted to, she began to doubt she would ever have another child. Unaware of the specific reasons behind her inability to become pregnant, she and her husband became hopeless. More than wanting to achieve pregnancy, they wanted to know the cause of her inability to do so, but found their options in finding a doctor with an open mind to be few.

Like Kate, many women- when approaching the fragile topic of infertility with their doctors- are often met with indifference to their emotional struggle and are made to feel as though they are just another number; another consumer paying money for a product. The fact that IVF is so popular plays a huge factor in the confusion and lack of understanding on the part of the doctor when a woman does not want to choose that route. But women have good reason to feel insecure with the process of IVF as it has many pitfalls to it. Not only does it not address underlying health issues that could be the cause of their infertility, it also presents many risks to the woman, it’s very costly (average cost per cycle is around $12,000 or more), the success rate is mostly less than 40%, it does not respect the marital relationship nor does it respect the life of the baby or babies produced when doctors join the eggs and sperm in a laboratory. Added to all of that, many couples admit to a decrease in the quality of both their sex life and their relationship when choosing IVF as an option to conceive.

Many couples are completely unaware of a fast-growing technology for achieving pregnancy called NaPro Technology. This innovative technology is an approach to fertility that adheres to the guidelines provided by a woman’s natural cycles. The Creighton Model of fertility care is the foundation for this approach, monitoring the bio-markers which showcase hormonal changes in a woman’s cycle. Coupled with natural supplements, and sometimes laparoscopic surgery, NaPro Technology has a very high success rate when used to achieve pregnancy. Because NaPro is a fertility-care based approach and not just a fertility-control approach, many women who achieve pregnancy through this method may find it to be less stressful, more inclusive and a better option overall in catering to the needs of their entire person- mind, body and soul.

The Science behind NaPro has been developing since the Creighton Model was first being studied, over 30 years ago. Because a woman’s body has specific tendencies and symptoms at each stage of her cycle which can be monitored by following this model, it is often easy to detect and diagnose an underlying problem by noticing a variance in the patterns of these symptoms. If nothing seems out of the ordinary, there are several other steps to take to help a woman determine the cause of her infertility. Kate, whom I mentioned above, spent an entire summer learning how to read her body’s signs and symptoms based on Creighton, and began recording her findings on charts. Her doctor read her charts and was able to determine that her body was actually doing what it should, suggesting they next test the actual levels of her hormones. Kate, filled with anxiety and still not pregnant, wanted to find out if her hormonal levels were the culprit so she went every other day to get blood drawn. When test results came back “normal” again and as she discussed pain and other symptoms she was experiencing in each cycle, her doctor suggested surgery as the next step, offering that many women became pregnant within six months of surgery.

Kate underwent surgery, finding out afterward that not only did she have endometriosis and scar tissue but that her tubes had blockages in them. Early one morning about two months later, Kate woke up and took a pregnancy test. She had taken them many, many times before over the previous six years. This one, however, did not read negative as all the others had. This one was different. Over the next few days, several more tests including a blood test reconfirmed what those double lines told her that morning, and Kate was thrilled to announce to our family that she was finally expecting! Thanks to the attention to her whole body through her doctors and NaPro Technology, she achieved her heart’s desire to have another baby.

It remains to be said that not all women will achieve pregnancy through NaPro, or any other means of aid. I’d like to reiterate that this is NOT to say that any woman who cannot conceive is any less of a woman. A woman is not just a woman because of the abilities of her reproductive parts, and not all women are called to be mothers to their own biological children. It is the innate care and nurturing with which women are created that define their femininity. The very idea that we wish to conceive a child, nurturing one throughout every moment of their existence, is just a small aspect of that. If you are struggling with infertility or know someone who is, I recommend researching NaPro as an option. You may just find the answers you are looking for.

If you’re ever looking to play a rousing game of Bait the Redhead, may I suggest tacking one of two little adjectives onto the word “Catholic?”

Those adjectives? Conservative and liberal.

This is a long-standing pet peeve of mine (circa 2002), but all the brouhaha this past year over Pope Francis (“He’s sticking it to conservative Catholics!” “Another victory for the liberal Catholic camp!”) has dialed up the annoyance factor for me a hundred fold.

Why, you ask?

Well, to start with, it’s confusing.

When you say someone is a liberal Catholic, what do you mean? That they voted for Barack Obama? That they think women should be priests? That they like liturgical dance?

Likewise, when you say someone is a conservative Catholic, are you saying they voted for Rick Santorum? That they read Thomas Aquinas? That they only go to the Extraordinary Form Mass?

What about people who voted for Rick Santorum and like liturgical dance? What are they? Conservative or liberal?

And how about those folks who voted for Barack Obama, go to daily Mass, and love them some Thomas Aquinas? Conservative? Liberal? Schizophrenic?

Or, to get more specific, what about me? I’m a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, Obamacare-hating, free(ish) market-supporting, Gregorian Chant-loving, daily Mass-going girl. I must be a conservative Catholic. Right?

Confusing, isn’t it? That’s why it’s my first reason for so despising the pairing of “liberal” and “conservative” with “Catholic.” Those adjectives possess a plethora of meanings, and unless a host of qualifying statements accompany them, they come up short in their overall usefulness. Simply put, they don’t illuminate; they obscure.

My second problem is that using those adjectives feeds some people’s bad habit of conflating Church doctrine and party dogmas, encouraging them to think that being Catholic and Republican or Catholic and Democrat are one and the same thing.

No matter what the politicians say, no one political party is the standard bearer for the Catholic Faith. Both, in some way, are at odds with Church teaching. Forgetting that is a shortcut to cafeteria Catholicism. It encourages people to think they can disregard some of the Church’s doctrines simply because their preferred political party says they can.

And they can’t. That’s not how it works. Shocking though this may be, the DNC and RNC are not divinely appointed arbiters of the moral universe. If we’re Catholic, we’re supposed to believe that job has long been taken by the Church. So, it’s her voice, not MSNBC’s or Fox News’, to which we should be listening.

Last but not least (really, most of all), attaching words like “liberal” and “conservative” to the Catholic Faith skews people’s understanding of the nature of the Faith itself.

Let’s take a trip to the dictionary. For all its various meanings, the word “liberal” fundamentally means “one who liberalizes.” And one who liberalizes is one who seeks to “reform something and make it less strict.” Likewise, the word “conservative” denotes “one who conserves.” And one who conserves is one who “keeps something from harm, loss, or decay.”

In other words, attaching the terms “liberal” and “conservative” to “Catholic,” implies that Catholic doctrine has the potential to decay or be reformed. It also reinforces the notion that the essentials of Church teaching are as debatable as the details of Paul Ryan’s budget. Which they’re not.

Yes, of course, there’s development in Church teaching. As the years pass and man applies his mind to the Deposit of Faith, our understanding of Revelation can deepen. It can become more nuanced.

But it can’t change. The fundamentals remain, always and everywhere, the same.

The Church, as the saying goes, is not a democracy. It’s not a body politic, and ascribing political terms to various stripes of Catholics feeds the wrong-headed notion that one day the Church is going to say, “Aw shucks, post-modern world, you’re so right: women priests, gay marriage, and free contraception for all is totally the way to go. What were we thinking?

So, back to me. What am I? Conservative or liberal?

Neither. I’m not a conservative Catholic. I’m not a liberal Catholic. I’m just Catholic. If the Church teaches it, I believe it. If she says to do something, I do it.

And Pope Francis? What is he? Again, he’s a Catholic, a son of the Church, a 100 percent, dyed-in-the-wool mackerel snapper. Try to slap some other label on the man, and you’re just setting yourself up for a massive case of confusion.

All that being said, there are still some adjectives that pair quite nicely with “Catholic.”

There are, for example, dissenting Catholics—Catholics who disagree with one or more of the Church’s teachings. Then, there are lapsed Catholics—Catholics who’ve fallen away from the Church. There are lackadaisical Catholics—Catholics who’ve grown lazy or apathetic in the practice of their faith. And there are apostate Catholics—Catholics who’ve formally separated themselves from the Church.

There also are badly catechized Catholics—Catholics who think they’re living their faith, but haven’t been given all the tools to do so. There are unevangelized Catholics—the baptized and confirmed who go through the motions of the Faith, but don’t have the slightest clue why. And there are struggling Catholics—faithful men and women having a hard time understanding or living some aspect of the Faith.

Oh, and lest we forget, there also are faithful Catholics, devout Catholics, and holy Catholics.

Really, the list could go on. There is a whole wide world of wonderful, colorful, perfectly apt adjectives at our disposal that, when paired with the word “Catholic,” illuminate and elucidate. Best of all, they do that without dividing Catholics up into two diametrically opposed, arbitrarily constructed camps

So, next time you’re tempted to pair “liberal” and “conservative” with “Catholic,” for the sake of both clarity and my sanity, please pop open the dictionary or thesaurus first and see what else you can find.

Unless, of course, that rousing game of Bait the Redhead is what you were after. Then, by all means, “liberal” and “conservative” it is.

Pope Francis has laid out his plans for the Church in Evangelii Gaudium (EG). Rush Limbaugh read it and has concluded he’s a Marxist. Politically conservative evangelicals fear they’ve lost an ally in the Catholic Church. The pro-gay marriage lobby and Planned Parenthood are disillusioned after reading paragraphs 66 and 213, and rightly so. Pius X Society sympathizers are on edge after reading 108. “Left-leaning” Catholics who were hoping for a female priesthood are deflated after reading paragraph 104. Mainstream media labels him a progressive. Whose side is this man on anyway?

That he’s getting the entire world’s attention is undeniable. (I was recently interviewed on Al Jazeera TV about him. That’s a first for me!) But I think most of the world, from Rush to HuffPost to Al Jazeera, has absolutely no idea how to read him. That’s because most of the world is examining the 265th successor of Peter through the wrong lens.

The Church has never fit the hyper-politicized lens the Western World has come to see all things through. We’re “right of center” on abortion and gay marriage. We’re “left of center” on immigration and the need to care for the poor. Maybe that’s because our “center” is Jesus Christ.

The only paradigm that explains everything Pope Francis is saying and doing is the Great Commission. He’s evaluating all things Catholic in light of the question, “does this ‘make disciples’ (Mt 28:19) effectively?” And he’s making it clear that the Great Commission doesn’t only entail talking about Jesus, though that is an essential part, but also, shining the light of Jesus Christ into every aspect of human life, from economics to life issues to marriage.

Pope Francis is an evangelist, plain and simple. But he’s no ordinary evangelist. Though he’s taken his name after Francis of Assisi, our pope is clearly a missionary in the spirit of “the other St. Francis.” St. Francis Xavier was a 16th century Jesuit missionary who may have baptized more people than anyone in history. He was also a bit of a wild man. His desire to share the Gospel in its purest form probably drove the more mild manned, yet good people around him crazy!

He once wrote to his superior, “Many, many people…are not becoming Christians for one reason only: there is nobody to make them Christians. Again and again I have thought of going round the universities of Europe, especially Paris, and everywhere crying out like a madman, riveting the attention of those with more learning than charity: ‘What a tragedy: how many souls are being shut out of heaven and falling into hell, thanks to you!’”

That’s a man who liked to “shake things up.” The one thing that made his skin crawl was an evangelistically impotent Church. He challenged people deeply, to the point of annoying them. Likewise, anyone who’s read the Pope’s Apostolic Exhortation without feeling a bit challenged hasn’t read it with an open heart.

Pope Francis isn’t endearing himself to “the left” or “the right”–those poles that have so painfully torn apart the Church since Vatican II. His Apostolic Exhortation gives the jab of a shepherds staff to those parts in each of our hearts that would cling to either a liberal social gospel without the cross, or to a “high church” Catholicism that isn’t willing to become “bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets (EG 49).”

Those who have come to experience the Church as a conservative fortress to keep sinners out rather than a launching pad for a mission to serve the world, sinners included, are rightly threatened by Francis. Those who had hoped the pope’s desire to “shake things up” would manifest as a new, liberal theology are rightly disappointed. He’s not a theologian, interested in developing doctrine. He’s a pastor and his passion is developing the strategy of the new evangelization that was set forth by his predecessors, even in regards to the way he exercises his own office (EG 16).

Things might get a bit messy with a papacy bent on spending all of it’s energy exploring how to most effectively impact the modern world. Local Churches should grapple with the strategies the pope lays out as we discern what will work in each diocese and region. His intention in Evangelii Gaudium isn’t to offer an exhaustive and detailed plan, but to start the conversation on many important issues within the life of the Church (EG 32 and 226). But while the implementation of his pastoral direction will vary from place to place, and disagreements will occur over the specifics (stay tuned), the overall direction he’s steering the Barque of Peter is definitive and clear. He’s turning the Church’s energies and focus “outward” to the task of the new evangelization.

Pope Francis is steamrolling through all the barbed wire we’ve established between ourselves in the Church, disregarding all of our internal factions. The only “side” he is choosing is the Great Commission. He’s leading the charge into “no man’s land,” where the Gospel meets the rest of humanity, and he’s inviting the entire Church to follow him there. But follow or not, like the Jesuit Francis of the 16th century, he’s making it clear that he’s going there, even if he goes there alone.

On a recent Saturday morning my 12 year old son said: “Dad, I’m bored. What are we going to do for fun today?” Knowing my youngest son well, I translated this to mean that he was looking for something new and exciting and I was supposed to provide it. This all too frequent discussion with my children has been the cause of considerable reflection of late. As adults, do we also seek frequent engagement and entertainment? Does this desire for fun and excitement ever spill over into how we view our Catholic faith?

I often hear complaints that the “Mass is boring”, “the priest is difficult to understand” or “the priest didn’t wow us with an exciting homily.” Still more complaints (whining?) center on the lack of exciting music during Mass, the “inconvenience” of having to attend Mass weekly as well as all the Holy Days of obligation. I also frequently hear this comment: “I wish our parish was more like >>insert name of any Protestant church<< Church. They have a lot of fun in their services and the music is awesome.” The list of complaints is likely much longer, but I think you get the picture.

Are we suffering from spiritual A.D.D.?

Much has been written about the explosion of Attention Deficit Disorder (A.D.D.) in the past few decades. Many studies link kids’ overstimulation from video games as a big contributor to the problem. Adults have the same challenges as we struggle with our own addictions to smart phones and information overload from computers, TV, etc. Is this problem spilling over into our spiritual lives? Do we go from parish to parish looking for some sort of “Catholic buzz” to keep us entertained? Do we flirt with heresy by attending non-Catholic churches? Are our brains, craving more and more stimulation, incapable of finding peace? We need to tune out the “noise” to achieve the quiet and focus required in the Mass.

Spiritual Shepherd or Entertainer-in-Chief?

Do we ever take a moment to consider the challenging life of a Catholic priest? In addition to being our spiritual shepherds, parish priests are the administrators of complex organizations often beset with unique problems ranging from people issues on the staff to budget shortfalls. Their days are filled with saying Mass, presiding at weddings, funerals and baptisms, hearing Confessions, visiting the sick, prayer, study, meetings with parishioners and dozens of other duties we may not fully appreciate. They are not our entertainment directors. Before we complain about something these men of God did or didn’t do, we should reflect a little and say a prayer of thanksgiving for their life-long commitment to help us attain Heaven. These good men need our prayers and our support every single day. They do not need nor deserve much of the criticism that is sent their way.

The Eucharist

Do you ever notice that entering the church for Mass these days often resembles people finding their seats in a theater before a movie begins? There is lots of noise and chit-chat all the way up to the beginning of Mass. Where is the reverence? The respect? The humility? Time spent preparing to enter into the Mysteries? We are about to receive Holy Communion, the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we sometimes treat this sacred time like a secular family reunion instead of a holy celebration. Maybe one of the reasons people feel bored with the Mass is they have forgotten that the center of the Mass is Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice. “The faithful are to hold the Eucharist in highest honor, taking part in the celebration of the MostAugust Sacrifice, receiving the sacrament devoutly and frequently, and worshiping it with supreme adoration; pastors, clarifying the doctrine on this sacrament, are to instruct the faithful thoroughly about this obligation.” – (Code of Canon Law #898)

A little self-awareness and a desire to change

If anything you have read so far sounds familiar and hits too close to home, there may be a problem and change is needed. Too often we don’t know how we are behaving and coming across to others unless we hear it from a friend. More importantly, if we are in the “complainer camp”, can we change course? A thorough and honest examination of conscience provides an excellent way to identify our sinful behavior before having those sins forgiven by a priest in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. With more self-awareness and a contrite heart, it is only logical that we can now focus on what is really important about the Mass and better understand the critical role the Church plays in our lives.

We can’t be bored if we are sincerely seeking Him

Boredom is a side effect of our fast-paced, materialistic culture. We feel bored because we are constantly being over-stimulated and sold on the idea that we can have it all now and that something better is always around the corner. As rational human beings, we must realize that this is neither true nor sustainable. If we are sincerely seeking Christ, we will find Him through the Church He founded.

The world offers celebrities to idolize…the Church offers Saints to follow.

The world offers noise…the Church offers Peace.

The world offers falsedreams…the Church offers the Truth.

The world offers and celebrates vice…the Church offers a life of Virtue.

The world offers earthly pleasures…the Church offers eternal Heaven.

Fixing Catholic Boredom in Six Easy Steps

Every issue I have posed in this article has been an ongoing challenge for me and countless other people I know. We must realize this is not healthy behavior. How do we change? To sum up, here are the key points you have read, summarized into “Six Steps to Cure Catholic Boredom”:

We have to turn off at least some of the noise. Our spiritual A.D.D. is fed by our addiction to too much input from various sources. Don’t listen to the radio in the car. Eliminate most, if not all, TV time. Read more books. Get outside more often. Find time for quiet reflection and prayer every day.

Show more respect for our priests and quit looking to them for entertainment. They are not here to make Mass “exciting.” We are at Mass to offer worship and receive the Eucharist; not to hear an emotional homily or loud music.

Remember the Mass is about the Eucharist. Have we prayed to be worthy to receive Jesus? Have we thanked God for this gift? Have we prayed to let others see Christ in us? Reverence… gratitude… humility… worship… these are the key words to remember about the Mass.

Go to Reconciliation as often as possible. Do a thorough and honest examination of conscience. Where have we fallen short? Confess these sins to a priest and be forgiven. We will be less critical and eliminate boredom if we are acutely aware of our thinking and behaviors that lead to these avoidable sins.

Get involved and make a difference. Sitting on the outside and complaining is boring. Why not join a parish ministry and contribute our time and talent in a more productive way?

Quit trying to please both the world and God.“You cannot please both God and the world at the same time. They are utterly opposed to each other in their thoughts, their desires, and their actions.” -Saint John Vianney

Feeling bored about our Catholic faith is subtle and dangerous – it sort of creeps up on you. When we are bored we tend to be critical and seek more excitement. This is the wrong path. The world offers us false gods and tries to paint a negative picture of Catholicism that is an illusion. We have to fight through these lies. Perceived boredom may lead some to leave the Church for other faiths. They are drawn to the excitement and buzz, but will learn in time that they had everything they needed in the Church Jesus founded. Let’s reflect on how we feel right now about the Mass, priests, Church, etc. If we feel bored or critical, let’s follow a sound road map to bring us back from this dangerous territory. We have so much to be thankful for as Catholics if we will only take the time to appreciate it. The choice is ours and I humbly pray that we will make the right one.

Newspapers are not where the Church deepens doctrine or changes disciplines.

Three links on the Drudge Report referencing “comments” made by the Pope and/or “THE VATICAN” regarding atheists and papal celibacy. Is this more MSM nonsense? Benedict and the condom kerfluffle part deaux?

I’m surprised not to see any comments from Catholic media regarding this stuff. I’m interested in your thoughts.

There might not be a lot of commentary because headlines like these are too stupid for explanations. Then again… I am getting all sort of panicky email, so I’ll do this again.

This will have to be a little messy, but it should be sufficient to get the job done.

Preamble: Newspapers are not where the Church deepens doctrine nor changes the Church’s disciplines. Not even when the papers are El Universal or La Repubblica. It we can be clear about that point from the onset, we are 90% there.

First, what did Parolin really say about celibacy compared to that idiotic headline on Drudge?

Archbishop Pietro Parolin, whom Pope Francis named as the Vatican’s new Secretary of State on Aug. 31, are raising eyebrows today, with some wondering if they herald looming changes in Catholic teaching and practice.
In truth, Parolin’s comments represent what might be termed the standard moderate Catholic line – priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma, and can therefore be revised, but it nonetheless has value, and the church is not a democracy but it can and should be more collegial.

Those points have been made many times by many different voices, and they don’t necessarily point to any specific policy decisions. If anything, Parolin seems to want to temper expectations that Francis will turn the church on its ear, stressing the theme of continuity.

In other words, what the interview confirms is not so much a spirit of revolution on Francis’s watch, but rather the generally pragmatic and moderate stamp of his papacy.

The Secretary of State, Archbishop Piero Parolin gave an interview to the Venezuelan newspaper El Universal. (First mistake.) The interviewer deftly set him up for a cross-court blast with a question about dogmas v. man-made rules. Parolin runs after the ball. The the interviewer sends this one in: “Celibacy is not –[PAROLIN:] It is not a church dogma and it can be discussed because it is a church tradition.” Then he ramble a bit about the first millennium and Trent. The interviewer rushes the net: “Speaking of celibacy — [PAROLIN responds:]

The work the church did to institute ecclesiastical celibacy must be considered. We cannot simply say that it is part of the past. It is a great challenge for the pope, because he is the one with the ministry of unity and all of those decisions must be made thinking of the unity of the church and not to divide it. Therefore we can talk, reflect, and deepen on these subjects that are not definite, and we can think of some modifications, but always with consideration of unity, and all according to the will of God. It is not about what I would like but what God wants for His church. … It has always been said that the church is not a democracy. But it would be good during these times that there could be a more democratic spirit, in the sense of listening carefully, and I believe the pope has made of this one of his pontificate’s objectives. A collegial movement of the church, where all the issues can be brought up, and afterward he can make a decision.

In short, there is nothing here that hasn’t already been said a zillion times. But the MSM got some headlines, didn’t they!

Next, what did the Pope really say about conscience compared to the doofy headlines?

Pope Francis wrote a an open letter as a response to questions posed by Eugenio Scalfari, the editor of the lefty Italian daily La Repubblica, Eugenio Scalfari. ZENIT has a translation. It is no surprise that I have not seen one yet from the Holy See. Gosh! Who would think we needed one, given headlines flashing across the English speaking world that the Pope says you don’t have to believe in God? Who would think that we would need a translation that didn’t include the howler: “Egregious Doctor Scalfari, I thus conclude my reflections, …”. While I echo the letter of the sentiment, I also know that “egregio Signore” in Italian is a commonplace in correspondence and that it means “Dear Sir”. This is the trap of “false friends” when translating. Italian “egregio” and English “egregious” are both from Latin egregius, “outstanding”, “not mediocre”, “distinguished”, “uncommon”. The idea is that you stand away from (ex) the herd (grex). In Italian, the character of outstanding is positive. In English the character of outstanding is negative, and strongly so: extraordinary in some bad way as in “an egregious mistake of translation”. Yes, you can find examples in English which are positive, but they will be archaic.

In any event, Francis wrote to Scalfari that “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.”

Okay. Nothing new here. When people violate what they know to be true, they are making against God, who is Truth. Pursuit of the good, the true and the beautiful, sincerely and honest pursuit of the Truth is always, in some way – though incomplete and flawed, a pursuit of God. It can’t be otherwise for an image of God. So, Francis could write

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”

The Pope did not say that Truth is subjective for each person:

This doesn’t mean that truth is variable or subjective, quite the opposite.

As far as non-believers, atheists, agnostics being able to go to heaven is concerned, Francis didn’t write about that. He did write:

The Christian faith believes this: that Jesus is the Son of God who came to give his life to open to all the way of love. Because of this you are right, egregious Doctor Scalfari, when you see in the Incarnation of the Son of God the foundation of the Christian faith. Tertullian already wrote “caro cardo salutis,” the flesh (of Christ) is the foundation of salvation. Because the Incarnation, namely, the fact that the Son of God came in our flesh and shared our joys and sorrows, the victories and defeats of our existence, to the cry of the cross, living everything in love and fidelity to Abba, attests to the incredible love that God has for every man, the inestimable value that he gives him. Because of this, each one of us is called to make his own the look and the choice of love of Jesus, to enter into his way of being, of thinking and acting.

Not my way of putting it, but… hey! He didn’t ask me.

There is nothing in what the Pope wrote to this socialist unbeliever in his open letter that deviates from what the Church teaches. Furthermore, this letter is not likely to appear in Acta Apostolicae Sedis (nor will any of the little daily fervorini which get people all worked up… nor with the pithy and yet ambiguous one-liners the press so likes to obsess about). This letter changes not one tittle or jot of Catholic teaching. It doesn’t not advance and shift Catholic teaching. It is a grand public relations gesture simultaneously stemming from, I am sure, a sincere desire to reach out to a man with great influence over public opinion and to meet him on his own turf.

When the Pope wants to shift or deepen what the Church teaches on some point of the faith or morals, he knows how to do it and he has the proper means so that we will recognize what he is up to. La Repubblica is where that sort of thing takes place.

This sort of time consumer is, by the way, why I have long been against highly placed prelates giving lots of interviews to the secular press and why I am against Popes doing interviews and … yes… even writing books (not that I didn’t benefit from Benedict’s books about the Lord).

That said, no one can deny that everyone, even the Church’s enemies, are hanging on Francis’ every word.

Recent Posts

Incarnation

Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of Christian faith: "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God." Such is the joyous conviction of the Church from her beginning whenever she sings "the mystery of our religion": "He was manifested in the flesh." CCC 463

Conjugal Fidelity

Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one's given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man andwoman to enter into Christ's fidelity for his Church.

Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.St. John Chrysostom suggeststhat young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us. . . . I place your love above all things, andnothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.